NationStates

I cast the first vote for this resolution!

World Assembly Ambassador from Weed,
Clinton Tew

Total privacy, even against the government, would only increase crime. Law enforcement would only be able to catch the criminals if they were caught in the act. I agree with the government having the right to watch their citizens, and thus I'm afraid I urge everyone to vote against this with me.

Yours,
Aiden Hunt, Prime Minister of Huntopialand.

It has long been a Flibbleite policy to oppose any resolution that contains errors that the author could have fixed before a resolution goes up for vote. As this is the case here, I'm afraid that I must cast my vote AGAINST this resolution. Furthermore, I urge everyone else to do likewise because as this is a repeal we'll be stuck with the "pubic" typo for all time because you can't repeal a repeal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Indeed, due to the moderators deleting a proposal because of a "mistake" to use their words, it would have been fixed. There was nothing short of sending out a third group of mass telegrams to delegates to fix the error. And rest assured Fibble would be gravely upset and angered had such a impolite and disrespectful campaign been launched. If I took the time to be concerned about groups of opposition that have a tendancy to be opposed to anything or anyone new, I'd be pulling my hair out all day long. I did what I could while not crossing the line into annoying the delegates. But I wouldn't have pleased Mr. Fibble by choosing any route, as per the usual.

World Assembly Ambassador from Weed,
Clinton Tew

No proposal with the word 'pubic' in it can be all bad.

You have our support. And our axes.

Clinton Fellbush, PhD
Zanzibarnia WA Ambassador
Axe Maker

I'm confused, the original resolution is quite good. I agree it needed to be cleaned up. An amendment or a re-write would be better than a repeal. Voting against , because it seems only to be a job - half done.

Jaffa land wrote:I'm confused, the original resolution is quite good. I agree it needed to be cleaned up. An amendment or a re-write would be better than a repeal. Voting against , because it seems only to be a job - half done.

Eventually I won't need to repeat this but, Ambassador one cannot amend a resolution. It is against the rules and cannot be done.

"Noticing the resolution creates no restrictions on when a government can make private information pubic which it finds in the course of an investigation,"

Me thinks, this small typo may kill it...

Syrakhstan wrote:"Noticing the resolution creates no restrictions on when a government can make private information pubic which it finds in the course of an investigation,"

Me thinks, this small typo may kill it...

nah, if its clear what was intended it is fine.

Weed wrote:Observing the text defines privacy, and establishes types of privacy, but does not specifically state that a person has a right to privacy, or that the government cannot infringe on all of those types of privacy...

What exactly does the word "asserting" mean, now? The danger of completely ignoring preambles is that you will sometimes miss active clauses within them...

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Weed wrote:Observing the text defines privacy, and establishes types of privacy, but does not specifically state that a person has a right to privacy, or that the government cannot infringe on all of those types of privacy...

What exactly does the word "asserting" mean, now? The danger of completely ignoring preambles is that you will sometimes miss active clauses within them...

That doesn't require action. It does not assert who must defend privacy. It simply states the general view of the world assembly that privacy should be protected. Unfortunately, that was a view that the resolution never followed up on, and thus it needed to be struck down.

I'm not saying the intent of the resolution wasn't to defend privacy. All I am saying is that under this resolution alone, governments may make invading the privacy of citizens a routine procedure and be completely in compliance, as there was no requirement in the original.

Sanctaria wrote:

Jaffa land wrote:I'm confused, the original resolution is quite good. I agree it needed to be cleaned up. An amendment or a re-write would be better than a repeal. Voting against , because it seems only to be a job - half done.

Eventually I won't need to repeat this but, Ambassador one cannot amend a resolution. It is against the rules and cannot be done.

I highly doubt we ever reach a point where new nations understand that.

World Assembly Ambassador from Weed,
Clinton Tew

Weed wrote:That doesn't require action. It does not assert who must defend privacy. It simply states the general view of the world assembly that privacy should be protected. Unfortunately, that was a view that the resolution never followed up on, and thus it needed to be struck down.

It says that privacy is a right. Are you really saying that the phrase structure "X is a right" isn't sufficient for declaring a right?

What is your solution, here? Summarize modern procedural and substantive doctrines of privacy in 3,500 characters? When it comes to these issue, I don't think many people are realizing that what we understand about these rights comes from judicial decisions, not legislation.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Weed wrote:That doesn't require action. It does not assert who must defend privacy. It simply states the general view of the world assembly that privacy should be protected. Unfortunately, that was a view that the resolution never followed up on, and thus it needed to be struck down.

It says that privacy is a right. Are you really saying that the phrase structure "X is a right" isn't sufficient for declaring a right?

What is your solution, here? Summarize modern procedural and substantive doctrines of privacy in 3,500 characters? When it comes to these issue, I don't think many people are realizing that what we understand about these rights comes from judicial decisions, not legislation.

No, declaring it is a right does not grant that right to anyone. And no, the solution would be: "Declares member states may not infringe on one's right to privacy," as an operative clause. It takes 11 words and leaves approximately 3489 other words to restrict or define that clause as you wish.

World Assembly Ambassador from Weed,
Clinton Tew

The ambassador from Hiraga walks up to her podium, straightening her sailor collared vest.

"The issue of Privacy is of a grave concern for my nation. We have some of the most stringent privacy laws, at least as good as we can in a society of laws and a private and public sector. Information is our nation's life blood, and the information privacy of an individual we hold sacred to the utmost. To see that this agreement not only doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but puts the individual sapient rights of an individual's privacy to the whims of their government instead of forming a binding trans-national resolution, leads our country to one conclusion. We stand for this repeal. Without question. As long as a better, succinct, and functional replacement is made."

She walks off, flanked by her aides.

Weed wrote:No, declaring it is a right does not grant that right to anyone. And no, the solution would be: "Declares member states may not infringe on one's right to privacy," as an operative clause. It takes 11 words and leaves approximately 3489 other words to restrict or define that clause as you wish.

It's a right. By definition, it cannot be infringed upon. Would you argue that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't actually grant any rights?

Since a superior piece of legislation appears to be in the works, I shall be voting in favour of this repeal.

I am wondering what is up with all this repeal and replace business, though...

The right to privacy is one Tibberirians hold most dear. We support this in hopes that a replacement can be quickly brought to the floor.

Seeing as the right to privacy can be circumvented, we vote for the repeal of the previous act. We hope that the next bill will be more thorough in preventing the invasion of our own privacy.

To the delegate who submitted this resolution, what amendments would you make to the resolution right to privacy to perfect it?

I endorse this for the people of regions far and wide. Sadly, I'm just a delegate to elect a delegate.

If there is a Repeal and Replace, the replacement should explain what "the appropriate authorities" must be.

Continued on from earlier post...

Also, with repealing the "Right to Privacy", is the delegate saying that the right to privacy should not exist and everything should be public, which would undoubtedly ruin many lives, promoting suicide all over the world, or that the delegate would like to attempt to improve it. If the delegate chose that thy wants to improve the resolution, it is recommended that that is done.

In my opinion, the "pubic" typo is a reason to vote in favor.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

I certainly didn't have the typo, so who are you talking about?

Yorobia wrote:To the delegate who submitted this resolution, what amendments would you make to the resolution right to privacy to perfect it?

[OOC: The link to my replacement is in the OP, like second line. It's good to read the OP.]